[url]www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-3/105341122543220.xml[/url]
"Thousands of police officers who belong to the PBA would be affected by this decision," said Robert Fagella, the PBA attorney. "Police officers have always been exempt."[noclue]
The PBA gave a crucial endorsement to the landmark assault weapons ban in 1990 that helped Florio win approval for the legislation. Fagella said that endorsement came with the understanding that law enforcement was entitled to a broad exemption.[ROFL2]
"Both the Legislature and the Florio administration specifically intended that police officers be completely exempt from the assault firearms ban," Fagella stated in a recent court filing.[nuts]
And now that they have stabbed the LEO's in the back.
They may not be so fast to support unarming the public.
Now that they to can not be trusted to be armed.
[Murphy called the PBA's position "shocking" and argued it would "be opening the door and sanctioning a veritable underground of unregulated assault firearms," in his brief to Coleman last week.] [hail2]

Anyone have an address to that police department. I think it would be nice to send them a note reminding them that when they are off duty their state considers them a threat just like the rest of the peasents and that they cannot be trusted with certain weapons. Then remind them that they got exactly what they deserve for trying to take away the rights of civilians.

[url]www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-3/105341122543220.xml[/url]
(just fixing the hotlink)
What the hell is it with LEOs whose last name is Moose, anyway? [:D]
Looks like the gap between the "protected" and the "peons" is growing smaller. [bounce]

According to my estimates, you've wasted 8 hours of my time...and I assure you that's a kind estimate.

This could be an eye opener.
It is difficult for me to explain my thoughts on RKBA to those hard heads that feel gun control won't affect them.
In large most LEOs are pro gun, but apathetic towards gun control legislation since they feel it won't apply to them.

Rather than ragging on all the peace officers, why not:
1. Say that it's a damn unfortunate thing going on here.
2. Point out strongly that the beneficial side effect is that they should now have their eyes wide open to the fact that they should be advocating for everyone'a 2nd Amendment rights (since they are now obviously a target just like the rest of us).
3. Say that the lesson learned is that once by setting themselves apart from the rest of us in fireearms laws. they undercut support from the rest of us for their own rights, and that this only results in a divide-and-conquer approach froom the anti's.

Originally Posted By prk:
Rather than ragging on all the peace officers, why not:
1. Say that it's a damn unfortunate thing going on here.
2. Point out strongly that the beneficial side effect is that they should now have their eyes wide open to the fact that they should be advocating for everyone'a 2nd Amendment rights (since they are now obviously a target just like the rest of us).
3. Say that the lesson learned is that once by setting themselves apart from the rest of us in fireearms laws. they undercut support from the rest of us for their own rights, and that this only results in a divide-and-conquer approach froom the anti's.

View Quote

Well because that makes sense. You see, we can't have any of that. I think it's been banned.

New Jersey is just there to prevent Pennsylvania from becoming Beach Front property.We need a BIG TSUNAMI to take care of that and Philly to.People in NJ get what they deserve, look who they elct in office. If you are smart move to Pa.

It is about a flippin' M1 CARBINE!
Pardon my naivite, but they consider that an assault weapon????
I guess so - detachable 15/30 round mag, bayo lug. They said it was a ww2 carbine, so maybe it did not even have the bayo lug.
Different culture. I honestly don't think anyone would make a fuss about illegal class3 at our range.

Originally Posted By pogo:
It is about a flippin' M1 CARBINE!
Pardon my naivite, but they consider that an assault weapon????
I guess so - detachable 15/30 round mag, bayo lug. They said it was a ww2 carbine, so maybe it did not even have the bayo lug.
...

View Quote

They're specifically listed as AWs in New Jersistan regardless of how they're configured.

Police officer or not, no one needs a weapon as devestatingly over powered as a M1 anyway. Those weapons were made to defeat tanks and helicopter gunships. They serve no sporting purpose whatsoever.
Why, we had a deer hunter try to use one of those M1 assault sniper machine weapons here a couple of years ago. He hit the deer, blew it into chunks no bigger than your pinkie, destroyed two 100 year old oaks that were behind the deer, and started a forest fire that destroyed over 80 acres of land! Only right wing militia gun-nut types want that type of gun anyway.
(I was thinking of getting my recoil sensitive wife a M1, but she fell in love with a kel-tec in 9mm instead)
Edited 'cause I can't type worth s**t.

[ROFL2] [ROFL2] [ROFL2] [ROFL2]
Maybe the chickens are finally coming home to roost? It sucks that [b]anyone[/b] should be arrested and charged under a bogus law to begin with, but we might not even have AW bans (be it state or federal) if police organizations hadn't backed the legislation... while giving themselves a free ride.
And, on the Left-Coast we have 9th Circuit Court
affirming that retired LEO's warrent no special exemption.
[url]http://www.courtnews.com/circuitsummaries/9thcircuit.htm[/url]
Silveira v. Lockyear, December 5
[Amended opinion, petition for rehearing is denied.] J.Reinhardt finds the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms and dismisses plaintiffs' challenge to California's assault weapons ban.
Also, plaintiffs Equal Protection claims are meritless because there is no constitutional infirmity in California's statute. [red]However, no rational basis exists for the establishment of a statutory exception with respect to retired police officers, and the retired officers' exception fails even the most deferential level of Equal Protection scrutiny.[/red] Affirmed in part.

Originally Posted By prk:
Rather than ragging on all the peace officers, why not:
1. Say that it's a damn unfortunate thing going on here.
2. Point out strongly that the beneficial side effect is that they should now have their eyes wide open to the fact that they should be advocating for everyone'a 2nd Amendment rights (since they are now obviously a target just like the rest of us).
3. Say that the lesson learned is that once by setting themselves apart from the rest of us in fireearms laws. they undercut support from the rest of us for their own rights, and that this only results in a divide-and-conquer approach froom the anti's.

View Quote

I am not "ragging" on LEO's.
I am not as elequent at expressing myself.
What is unfortunate here is the constant support LEO unions give to anti-gun legislation.
Mostly because they are promised it will not affect them.
The rank and file should let the powers at be know where they stand.
It boggles the mind how the liberals are first in line to hang a LEO out to dry for some minor infraction against some POS.
Yet the LEO unions support the canidates who support these types of policys.
LEO's had better wake up.

This is the reason that some of us LEOs have been at odds with our professional organizations for years. The educated among us saw the writing on the wall well in advance. Man I hate unions and this is the reason why. I would bet that the union bosses sold their endorsement for some other trade off, then sold it to their membership by telling them they were not smart enough to know what was best for them and to sit down and shut up. Well, union boy, I know whats best for me and mine, it just so happens that this sort of compromise isn't it.

Originally Posted By shotar:
This is the reason that some of us LEOs have been at odds with our professional organizations for years. The educated among us saw the writing on the wall well in advance. Man I hate unions and this is the reason why. I would bet that the union bosses sold their endorsement for some other trade off, then sold it to their membership by telling them they were not smart enough to know what was best for them and to sit down and shut up. Well, union boy, I know whats best for me and mine, it just so happens that this sort of compromise isn't it.

View Quote

[soapbox]
For the record I am IBEW.[headbang]
The last elections found many of the rank and file voting against the nationals wishes.[beer]
We/I voted our ethics/morals.[bounce]
That woke/scared some polititions/DNC and caused them to change their tactics.[peep]
If anyone believes the liberals/DNC are not after your guns and money, they are wrong.[argue]
The liberals/DNC just changed their methods to achieve their goals.[thinking]
Liberals/DNC think they know what you need and should have.[nuts]
Just my 2 cents worth.[wave]
Thats all I have left after taxes.[furious]